Effective Playing Time

In the aftermath of Norway's defeat to Bulgaria, the Norwegian coach Lagerbäck voiced his concerns over effective playing time. In the second half against Bulgaria, only 24 minutes were counted as effective playing time. The rest is time wasted by players rolling on the floor etc. He also argued that players should be carried off the pitch when they are "clearly" that injured. To add to the point, the ref added five minutes to those 24 minutes lost of playing time.

Does he have a point? Should football do like handball and ice hockey where they freeze the clock when the ball is out of play or there's an injury? It would perhaps take away the theatrical lying on the floor looking like a Howitzer blew off both your knee caps.

I think I somewhat agree with him. If a team is up, you can see most teams time wasting after 60 minutes, but when did ever a referee give a yellow for time wasting that early on? There are so many simple things the refs could do to get rid of these time wasters, but it only gets worse.

Clock should definitely stop for injuries and subs, as that's were the most time is lost, and it's mostly manufactured. Though goalkeepers seem to take an age to take goalkicks now too. If it means knocking the game down to 80 minutes or whatever, then do it. Timewasting is the most frustrating spectacle of the game. Even when teams waste time against Liverpool or City, I still find it frustrating to watch.

This one might be a bit too tinfoil-hat, but at away games when the away team is pressing to score, ball boys seem to either go missing, or not respond, and you often see goalkeepers having to run down near the corner flag to retrieve the ball for a goal kick or something. Yet if the home team need a goal, the opposite happens, and the ball is instantly retrieved. I've often assumed ball boys are coached to react differently to the home and away teams, especially after that incident at Swansea with Hazard, but I don't know how true that is overall.

Clock should definitely stop for injuries and subs, as that's were the most time is lost, and it's mostly manufactured. Though goalkeepers seem to take an age to take goalkicks now too. If it means knocking the game down to 80 minutes or whatever, then do it. Timewasting is the most frustrating spectacle of the game. Even when teams waste time against Liverpool or City, I still find it frustrating to watch.

This one might be a bit too tinfoil-hat, but at away games when the away team is pressing to score, ball boys seem to either go missing, or not respond, and you often see goalkeepers having to run down near the corner flag to retrieve the ball for a goal kick or something. Yet if the home team need a goal, the opposite happens, and the ball is instantly retrieved. I've often assumed ball boys are coached to react differently to the home and away teams, especially after that incident at Swansea with Hazard, but I don't know how true that is overall.

Click to expand...

Agree with this. There have been complaints made by teams that ball boys are not quick enough to deliver. I also find that players who kick the ball away from a free kick or a throw in is just so frustrating. Touch the ball in hand ball after the whistle is blown and you receive a yellow card. Do that in football, and they quickly cut it out.

If the ref does his or her job, there shouldn't be a problem. The ref can add on as much time as is felt necessary and has the tools to punish time-wasting. They just need a push from FIFA/IFAB to feel empowered to add on 5-10 minutes if that is what is fair and proportionate.

Moving to a stop clock doesn't really solve the issue of momentum-killing tactics and creates some new issues of using the stopped clock to rest or turn it into a set-piece game.

I do think some sort of clock stoppage should be brought in when time is being wasted. Time wasting has become an art like diving.

On the other hand if you make games a full 90 minutes of playing time the football itself will have to slow down, as the constant pauses are vital for players' recovery. They can't do 90 full minutes every week at the current pace.

If the ref does his or her job, there shouldn't be a problem. The ref can add on as much time as is felt necessary and has the tools to punish time-wasting. They just need a push from FIFA/IFAB to feel empowered to add on 5-10 minutes if that is what is fair and proportionate.

Moving to a stop clock doesn't really solve the issue of momentum-killing tactics and creates some new issues of using the stopped clock to rest or turn it into a set-piece game.

Click to expand...

This. The standard 3-4 minutes don’t work anymore, in fact I think 3 minutes is absolutely ridiculous in every game it is given and 4 is still on the low side.

Games should have 6-8 minutes added at minimum and first half should also have at least 3 instead of usual 1.

Sad thing is in the modern game I’m not sure it’s always as cynical as players staying down due to time-wasting. I think, especially the creative prima-donna types often stay down purely for attention seeking purposes. Sometimes a player gets caught and the red waves play on. Even after two minutes of play, the brat of a player, now lying on the floor at the other end of the pitch, has still refused to get up until he’s acknowledged. He just wants his knee rubbed and everyone to say ‘aww, poor baby’.

If the ref does his or her job, there shouldn't be a problem. The ref can add on as much time as is felt necessary and has the tools to punish time-wasting. They just need a push from FIFA/IFAB to feel empowered to add on 5-10 minutes if that is what is fair and proportionate.

Moving to a stop clock doesn't really solve the issue of momentum-killing tactics and creates some new issues of using the stopped clock to rest or turn it into a set-piece game.

Click to expand...

I think stopping it for injuries, subs and goals wouldn't turn it into a set-piece game. Stopping at each foul, corner or throw-in it could well do but limited to these situations I don't think it would. Rather, it would make time keeping more transparent. Also I like the idea of the game ending when the ball next legitimately goes out of play when you reach 90 mins as it would add excitement that this is the last chance to equalise - it would also stop the game ending when a side is about launch an attack.

I think stopping it for injuries, subs and goals wouldn't turn it into a set-piece game. Stopping at each foul, corner or throw-in it could well do but limited to these situations I don't think it would. Rather, it would make time keeping more transparent. Also I like the idea of the game ending when the ball next legitimately goes out of play when you reach 90 mins as it would add excitement that this is the last chance to equalise - it would also stop the game ending when a side is about launch an attack.

Click to expand...

I would love for this to happen. Don’t see why it can’t be done. Works fine in other sports.

In the aftermath of Norway's defeat to Bulgaria, the Norwegian coach Lagerbäck voiced his concerns over effective playing time. In the second half against Bulgaria, only 24 minutes were counted as effective playing time. The rest is time wasted by players rolling on the floor etc. He also argued that players should be carried off the pitch when they are "clearly" that injured. To add to the point, the ref added five minutes to those 24 minutes lost of playing time.

Does he have a point? Should football do like handball and ice hockey where they freeze the clock when the ball is out of play or there's an injury? It would perhaps take away the theatrical lying on the floor looking like a Howitzer blew off both your knee caps.

I think I somewhat agree with him. If a team is up, you can see most teams time wasting after 60 minutes, but when did ever a referee give a yellow for time wasting that early on? There are so many simple things the refs could do to get rid of these time wasters, but it only gets worse.

Click to expand...

Something certainly needs to be done to address all the time that isn't getting added on for when the ball is out of play. They say that effective play time is about 30 mins in each half, but as per your example yesterday, the ball is often only in play for 24 mins or less. This is literally 20% less game time than usual for the attacking team to score, which is a huge amount and it really makes time wasting an absolutely essential tactic for teams who are trying to not concede.

In terms of playing time... I do think it has to be done, but i don't like the idea of constantly time stopping... because this would be difficult for the ref to do alone AND concentrate on the game.

I think stopping the clock completely for injuries, subs and goals and attacking set-plays (penalties and free kicks namely) works for me. Throw-Ins, corners and little fouls just keep the watch going.

Not sure how long you'd need to make the game then though... maybe 75 minutes?

I think stopping it for injuries, subs and goals wouldn't turn it into a set-piece game. Stopping at each foul, corner or throw-in it could well do but limited to these situations I don't think it would. Rather, it would make time keeping more transparent. Also I like the idea of the game ending when the ball next legitimately goes out of play when you reach 90 mins as it would add excitement that this is the last chance to equalise - it would also stop the game ending when a side is about launch an attack.

Click to expand...

I would hate that... I mean what if the team that is behind get a corner? This would be taking away all the drama that comes with that. The game ending the way it is works for me... and the ref should obviously know better then to blow for full time when a team is on the attack.

Injured players should be carried out immediately and resume the play. Time stop won't work because it will be abused to hell with the losing team instead, a player faking injury every few minutes to stop the clock and gives his teammates more time.

Just carry the injuried player out of th pitch and let the play resume.

Injured players should be carried out immediately and resume the play. Time stop won't work because it will be abused to hell with the losing team instead, a player faking injury every few minutes to stop the clock and gives his teammates more time.

Just carry the injuried player out of th pitch and let the play resume.

Click to expand...

Why will this be abused more than the current system, where players can fake injuries to waste time that the opposition doesn’t necessarily get back?

If the ref does his or her job, there shouldn't be a problem. The ref can add on as much time as is felt necessary and has the tools to punish time-wasting. They just need a push from FIFA/IFAB to feel empowered to add on 5-10 minutes if that is what is fair and proportionate.

Moving to a stop clock doesn't really solve the issue of momentum-killing tactics and creates some new issues of using the stopped clock to rest or turn it into a set-piece game.

Click to expand...

Well, if the effective playing time for the 2nd half of the Norway game was 26 minutes, they'd need 19 minutes added on. Would any referee have the balls to do this? I mean, this would surely be a World record time added on.

Personally, if a player starts rolling on the floor, the stretcher shoudl immediately come on, to pick the player up and take him off the field. This will bring his team down to 10 men until he comes back on. Knowing this, if players are faking it, they'll soon stop as they realise their team will be playing with 10 men, if/when they do the multiple rolls on the ground.

Better clock management, better refs (with clear backing and all clubs advised pre season). If a player goes down and doesnt get straight off, say they HAVE TO go off field of play... hopefully get us to real injuries only (where being looked at, off field is right place anyway).

I don't think full clock management would move us to a set play (NFL) style sport. Some common sense would sort it but needs players buy-in too.... then get football close to rugby union where it's the norm that players don't arse about BUT ref can stop clock if needs to.

More yellow cards too... time wasting, arguing the toss with the ref, kicking the ball away. All the annoying things players do that also eat up time... fine, do that and get booked EVERY TIME. It'll either improve it or players will get yellow, red, fines, bans... fine by me.

I would love for this to happen. Don’t see why it can’t be done. Works fine in other sports.

Click to expand...

No I'd hate the whistle to go after 90 minutes when the ball goes out. Nothing quite like hearing a crowd roar when 4 minutes of added time goes on the board and you're losing by a goal, or need a goal to progress etc. But then I am a sentimental twat.

Well, if the effective playing time for the 2nd half of the Norway game was 26 minutes, they'd need 19 minutes added on. Would any referee have the balls to do this? I mean, this would surely be a World record time added on.

Click to expand...

Ball is usually only in play for 27-30 minutes on average in a half, so if the Norway game second half was 26 minutes, it should have needed somewhere around 3-6 minutes added on to bring it up to the average.

Better clock management, better refs (with clear backing and all clubs advised pre season). If a player goes down and doesnt get straight off, say they HAVE TO go off field of play... hopefully get us to real injuries only (where being looked at, off field is right place anyway).

Click to expand...

I've always thought that if a player goes down injured and receives treatment, then they have to stay off the field for the same (or maybe even double?) the amount of time they stayed down for.

I mean, if a player goes down injured and gets 5 minutes treatment, then they're probably going to need 5 minutes on the side to get more treatment if the injury is legit.

I think stopping it for injuries, subs and goals wouldn't turn it into a set-piece game. Stopping at each foul, corner or throw-in it could well do but limited to these situations I don't think it would. Rather, it would make time keeping more transparent. Also I like the idea of the game ending when the ball next legitimately goes out of play when you reach 90 mins as it would add excitement that this is the last chance to equalise - it would also stop the game ending when a side is about launch an attack.

Click to expand...

This would make for a great scrap at 88 mins if the winning team has the ball.

If the ref does his or her job, there shouldn't be a problem. The ref can add on as much time as is felt necessary and has the tools to punish time-wasting. They just need a push from FIFA/IFAB to feel empowered to add on 5-10 minutes if that is what is fair and proportionate.

Moving to a stop clock doesn't really solve the issue of momentum-killing tactics and creates some new issues of using the stopped clock to rest or turn it into a set-piece game.

Click to expand...

The thing is that refs are under pressure not to add to much playing time..
TV money.
Imagine if majority of games went over 100 minutes? There would be a lot of TV schedule disruption.

I would hate that... I mean what if the team that is behind get a corner? This would be taking away all the drama that comes with that. The game ending the way it is works for me... and the ref should obviously know better then to blow for full time when a team is on the attack.

Click to expand...

I hadn't consider. You could change it to when the team who currently has the ball loses possession where corners and throw-ins for the side constitute retaining possession. That said in the circumstance your describe they are essentially having time over and above what they should have but it would be a little anti-climatic not having the corner.

I've always thought that if a player goes down injured and receives treatment, then they have to stay off the field for the same (or maybe even double?) the amount of time they stayed down for.

I mean, if a player goes down injured and gets 5 minutes treatment, then they're probably going to need 5 minutes on the side to get more treatment if the injury is legit.

Click to expand...

News to me. I think it's just as long as needed.

My issue is more about players who roll/stay down but get up as soon as the ref has given a freekick, rub their "injury", make a pained face then start sprinting again.... like 4-year olds. If they roll over and stay down, looking at a ref then the rules should say they have to leave the field of play and be medically checked ... and stay off until the next break in play.

A bug bear of mine. Used to get kicked to shit in Sunday league football but no-one stayed down unless really injured.

My issue is more about players who roll/stay down but get up as soon as the ref has given a freekick, rub their "injury", make a pained face then start sprinting again.... like 4-year olds. If they roll over and stay down, looking at a ref then the rules should say they have to leave the field of play and be medically checked ... and stay off until the next break in play.

A bug bear of mine. Used to get kicked to shit in Sunday league football but no-one stayed down unless really injured.

Click to expand...

Oh no, that's not the rule - i'm suggesting that as a rule.

Just think if a player knew he'd be off the pitch for a minute if he spends a minute rolling around on the floor feigning something then he might think twice about doing so.

I think effective playing time is long overdue and it's introduction is only a matter of time. There is simply no way to tell how much pain a player feels or to fairly judge how much time is appropriate for a sub, corner or throw-in, let alone punish excesses when the only tool at a refs disposal are yellow cards.
Effective playing time would be way easier to implement than VAR and it would instantly get rid of like half the unsportsmanlike conduct. They "only" have to figure out how to adjust the playing time.

I think effective playing time is long overdue and it's introduction is only a matter of time. There is simply no way to tell how much pain a player feels or to fairly judge how much time is appropriate for a sub, corner or throw-in, let alone punish excesses when the only tool at a refs disposal are yellow cards.
Effective playing time would be way easier to implement than VAR and it would instantly get rid of like half the unsportsmanlike conduct. They "only" have to figure out how to adjust the playing time.

Click to expand...

Aye, that's the tricky bit. They need to get it bang on, for TV schedules. Tonnes of data out there for them to analyse before they make a decision, though.